Since it appears to you that I have years and years of experience, I will take that as a compliment. Thanks!

If there are a few members of the Church who believe it, then sure, I can understand that. Church members and leaders aren’t perfect and there are plenty of misunderstandings that go around. But I’d be surprised if more than a handful of members believed it. I suppose we’d have to do a survey to figure that out one way or the other.

“If they weren’t having sex, how would it be to “begat the Savior unlawfully’?”

The question is what would Orson Pratt deem as “unlawful”? Perhaps he would have considered artificial insemination without marriage to be unlawful.

“But you cannot deny it has not been a widespread belief (or misconception) among some members. I read in several posts above where others know members who hold to the same belief, so I know it’s not just my mom and her ward, especially since she has belonged to several. So it cannot just be an “anti-Mormon myth”. There must be a reason so many Mormons have come to this conclusion. It is not debated whatsoever among Christians as a possibility, so why are just Mormons misled?”

Perhaps the only thing we really disagree on is the extent to which it is believed by members of the Church. Everything I have experienced leads me to believe there is nothing more than a handful, certainly less than 1% of Church members. That might still mean there are thousands who believe it, but if it were taught by the Church then there would be millions who believed it. There could also be handfuls of members who believe that Joseph Smith only had one wife and that Mormons shouldn’t drink hot chocolate. The Church doesn’t teach these things, but it wouldn’t be hard to understand why some member might believe such things. The point is you aren’t going to hear the Church teaching that God had sex with Mary. If you hear such a thing, 99 times out of 100 it’s going to come from someone outside the Church who is trying to make the Church look bad. Sure, 1 out of 100 times it might be a Church member who has been misled into thinking this is what the Church believes, but if it’s only 1 out of 100 you might as well ignore it.

“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully.” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

Now why would Pratt feel the “overshadowing” would be unlawful unless Mary and God were married? If they weren’t having sex, how would it be to “begat the Savior unlawfully’? In what other context could this be? Even explaining in the terms you set above, this is alluding to something other than combining DNA. It is not unlawful for an unmarried man and woman to combine DNA using insemination. And if you cannot bring yourself to see it, can you not at least see why many members have come to the “sex” conclusion from these statements?

By the way, my mom said she picked up the belief from several other members along the way. When I told her she was being questioned by another member though she was quick to make clear that it was just her belief because it made sense to her, it is not official church doctrine. She said if the prophet came out and said it was absolutely not true then she would stop believing it, but until then it’s her opinion. So she confirmed it was never really a teaching, just something her and other members discussed and agreed upon. When she told me of the belief and defended it as it was truth, I assumed it was a church teaching by her reaction. Since I consider my mother to be a good, faithful Mormon I took what she said as a church belief, and for that I was mistaken in light of her new explanation.

But you cannot deny it has not been a widespread belief (or misconception) among some members. I read in several posts above where others know members who hold to the same belief, so I know it’s not just my mom and her ward, especially since she has belonged to several. So it cannot just be an “anti-Mormon myth”. There must be a reason so many Mormons have come to this conclusion. It is not debated whatsoever among Christians as a possibility, so why are just Mormons misled?

In my opinion, it is probably a mixture of the many quotes from prophets leading members to draw certain conclusions, and the misunderstanding of who God is completely (as in him being a man capable of sex in the first place).

We have plenty of original printings of books, transcripts, etc. from the first days of the LDS Church through to modern days. And then there are the scores of personal journals/diaries. Any change in doctrine that was taught in any sort of general fashion would be virtually impossible to hide.

“The Mormons didn’t let black people hold the priesthood until 1978, and that was church doctrine before “God” revealed he had changed his mind.”

It’s a case of semantics, perhaps, but not letting blacks hold the priesthood was not doctrine, it was practice, and there is a distinct difference between doctrine and practice. As Marcus Martins, a black member of the LDS Church and a Ph.D stated in his book Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood: Setting the Record Straight, “In the early 1900s some members of the Church, including some Church leaders, argued that the priesthood ban might make sense if people of the Black race had been less valiant, or less faithful, in the premortal existence… Once again, there are no scriptures or official declarations setting forth such a hypothesis as heavenly truth… People have a right to their opinion. But having a right doesn’t mean that personal opinions may automatically become doctrine…” (Pg. 14)

If you really want to understand that issue, at least as well as it can be understood, go read that book.

“The temple rituals were completely different before, my mom went through the temple with the old rituals and said they had to change them because it made others “uncomfortable”. If important doctrine and sacred temple rituals can be changed, what else can is the issue?”

The specific actions of temple rituals are not doctrine. This is the same misunderstanding that gets people hung up on similarities between LDS temple rites and those of the Masons. The specific actions, motions, signs, etc. aren’t set in stone. They don’t really matter, per se. As I understand it, they are completely arbitrary. God could have them be whatever he wanted them to be. They are suited to the particular context and experiences of the place and time in which they are given, to help the members of the Church in that time. As the context and experiences of Church members changes, the specifics of these ordinances may change as well. What is important is that God is the one who dictates or approves what they are, so that there is order.

Take baptism for example, and as a disclaimer I’m going to say this is my opinion, and I may be wrong, but I think I’m right or I wouldn’t say it. It doesn’t really matter whether baptism is by immersion, or with a few drops of water, what matters is that it’s the way God said it should be. That is, if God wanted to he could allow baptism by sprinkling a few drops, or baptism could be something entirely different not involving water at all. The doctrine is that we all must be cleansed and made perfect in order to return to God and that this requires the Atonement of Christ. God then sets up rules, commandments, ordinances, etc. to help us be cleansed and purified, but those commandments and ordinances are means to an end, not the end in and of themselves. If different means would do a better job of achieving the end, I suppose God could change the means without changing the doctrine.

Re: the new quotes, I’m not sure if you’re not reading my comments or merely not understanding them. This is why understanding context is so important. These statements were not made in a vacuum. They were in reaction to something somebody else said, and without knowing what they were in reaction to we cannot understand these quotes. But once we know the context, then the meaning of these quotes becomes easy to understand and quite clear. What is the context? That some people have taught that Christ is not the literal Son of God, that he was not the Only Begotten of the Father, that he was not half man, half God, not half mortal, half immortal, but that he was either a normal human like the rest of us, or not a human at all and merely a spirit that appeared as a man.

In reaction these quotes are saying that no, these are false teachings. The truth is that Christ was literally the Son of God. He is the result of a combination of God’s flesh and Mary’s flesh, just like any natural child. God’s DNA and Mary’s DNA, combining to create a being who was half man, half God, half mortal, half immortal, therefore able to perform the Atonement and suffer for the sins of the world as no other being could without dying.

Of sex there is no mention, nor reference, and your misunderstanding of these quotes is due to your not knowing the context in which they were given.

“There is so much in Mormonisms’ past that has to be buried or explained away or covered up, doesn’t that in itself concern you?”

I am not aware of anything that has been buried or covered up, although I suppose that sounds a bit tautological. What I see is that people who have an agenda against the Church misunderstand or purposely misrepresent the doctrines, history, and practices of the Church, and then when they are given the truth they claim there has been a coverup or that things are being explained away. I will admit things very commonly have to explained, but that is the nature of things when someone does not understand something.

“The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the RESULT OF NATURAL ACTION. He partook of flesh and blood- was begotten of his Father, as we are of our fathers.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 8:115)

“Natural action” would NOT be artificial insemination, nor would it be supernatural! Natural is not supernatural. He said natural action. That is sex. Look up the definition of natural action. It would not be with the help of a supernatural god. And just in case you did try to twist it, Heber C. Kimball clarifies also:

“In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I WAS NATURALLY BEGOTTEN; SO WAS MY FATHER, AND ALSO MY SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was NOTHING UNNATURAL about it.” (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of discourses, 8:211) (emphasis mine of course)

Does anyone else know how babies are “begotten naturally” by “natural action”? I do, and it’s not through artificial insemination, and it’s also not by any supernatural circumstances. This is not just my interpretation, it’s science. This denies the supernatural miracle that made the virgin birth special and different from any other natural conception and birth, it also denies any insemination which is also not natural. Just because this belief is being whitewashed now to try and make Mormonism fit with mainstream Christianity does not rule it out as being taught by the Mormon prophets. These quotes are why older, more faithful long term followers have held these beliefs! They took what the prophets said literally, and what you know as Mormonism Joshua is a more watered down, whitewashed version being sold to new converts today. There is so much in Mormonisms’ past that has to be buried or explained away or covered up, doesn’t that in itself concern you?

I am going to ask my mother who gave her the teaching or how she came across it and I will get back to you.

I’ve never stated that no Mormon believes such a thing. I’ve never stated that no Mormon has ever taught such a thing. What I’ve stated is that it’s not doctrine of the Church, and it’s not taught by the Church. By that I mean it’s not in our scriptures, it’s not in any official publication of the Church, it’s never brought up in General Conference, and Leah’s quotes notwithstanding I still have seen no evidence of any high-level Church leader saying God had sex with Mary, although I have presented quotes from Church leaders to the contrary. If someone’s mom teaches it to them, this is not “the Church”, at least not by my definition. If a Sunday school teacher teaches it, this is not “the Church”. If a bishop or stake president teaches it this is not “the Church”. I have never heard anyone, ever, anywhere teach it, but I won’t rule out that someone somewhere has in addition to Leah’s mom. But if you were to automatically say that anything any Church members says anywhere at any time, regardless of their position or authority within the Church to declare what is and what isn’t Church doctrine, is doctrine, then we are arguing semantics rather than the real point.

If, according to my definition above, you still want to insist it is taught by the Church and is a doctrine of the Church then sure, the burden is on me to prove to you otherwise. If you want to convince me to change my position then the burden of proof is upon you.

As for who started all this, I don’t know. What I do know is that if you search online regarding the topic, you won’t find any official Church source teaching the idea as doctrine, but you’ll find quite a few anti-Mormon sites bringing it up, which I believe supports my point that it’s not taught by the Church, but rather by anti-Mormons.